Banksy mural - Who owns the copyright

philslizzy said:
Banksy, it's his artwork. all the other discussion about profiting from illegal activities, who owns the building etc is irrelevant to the question.

Banksy created the artwork it is his copyright.
Click to expand...

true in theory - but how can he enforce the copyright without admitting criminal damage ?
 
Lets say, that an artist paints a picture on canvas in thier own studio; but with oil paints and canvas shop-lifted from Hobby-Craft.....

Artist would still own the intellectual rights to THEIR work.... fact that they were created with illegally obtained materials does not change that. They would still own the copy-right.

Lets say, that materials, in Hobby-Craft were in total marked up to a value of £25. Painting then sells for £10,000 in an exhibition. Court could punish them for stealing canvas and paint; but within limits comensurate to the value of that canas and paint, not the painting produced with it.
Click to expand...

Actually not - because if you sell a canvas and paint you don't own (because you stole it from hoby craft) for 10k - you are defraudung the buyer by selling him items that arent yours to sell , and you could therefore get stuck for the whole ten k in damages

Would Hobycraft 'own' either the £10K or 10p painting?

.
Click to expand...

they would own the actual item because it is on materials owned by them ie the canvas - they wouldnt own the intellectual rights/copyright to reproduce the image elsewhere
 
Rapscallion said:
By showing a previous mural of the same subject he painted legally?
Click to expand...

but I say , no I took this picture on the side of the trafford centre maanchester (or whether) therefore its not a derivative of that painting because it's clearly elsewhere
 
big soft moose said:
but I say , no I took this picture on the side of the trafford centre maanchester (or whether) therefore its not a derivative of that painting because it's clearly elsewhere
Click to expand...

Sorry Pete, don't follow.

To clarify what i was thinking, in case it caused confusion.

Your question was - how banksy could 'enforce the copyright without admitting criminal damage'.

If showing that he was the 'original author' is enough to prove ownership of copyright, then i though that if he previously painted another one of these murals elsewhere, or even sketched it, then he could point to one of these previous paintings / sketches to show he was the original author. However i do not know if this will prove copyright, just a way of not having to use the original, which could be seen as criminal damage.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
I hate to be the grammar police on this but FOR GOD's SAKE STOP HYPHENATING! :dummy:

Thankyou, and goodnight!
Click to expand...

Why does every debate on this forum always end up looking at definitions of words in the dictionary? It's like aggressive scrabble. punctuation?

;)
 
big soft moose said:
true in theory - but how can he enforce the copyright without admitting criminal damage ?
Click to expand...

He has admitted criminal damage as there is a photograph of this work is in his own book with details etc. I was just answering the original question.

Banksy sells canvases, sculptures and prints he makes a living from this. Check out some of his works, Street art is a way he publicises himself, there is no profit in (uncomissioned) street art and I expect he's pretty annoyed that one has been removed and auctioned off. Although he would never say so.

To the guy who said it's just a stencil, try it yourself, make stencil of this complexity. Banksy tells you how to do it is his book. There is only one 'copy' of this work, the stencil was made specially. It is art.

You could say anything on this site is 'just a photo' There is art and there is art. Some is good, some is bad, but it is still art.
 
Last edited:
Withdrawn from sale at very short notice!


Heather
 
A new mural has now appeared on the old site, doesn't look like a banksy to me, but I'm no expert!
 
Wasn't he quoted saying "copyrights are for losers" or something to that affect.
 
The fact is, he put the art there on a privately owned wall, without permission. So it's within the wall owner's rights to remove it (and the wall) if he/she wants to. If the owner then chooses to sell the wall, for a huge profit, good on them! I'd do it too.

If Banksy had wanted it to be permanently in the view of the public, he should have asked (gotten some sort of written agreement).
 
spacester said:
The fact is, he put the art there on a privately owned wall, without permission. So it's within the wall owner's rights to remove it (and the wall) if he/she wants to. If the owner then chooses to sell the wall, for a huge profit, good on them! I'd do it too.

If Banksy had wanted it to be permanently in the view of the public, he should have asked (gotten some sort of written agreement).
Click to expand...


I don't think that Banksy cares either way.......


Heather
 
I still don't understand what any of this has to do with copyright.
 
Banksy once said that an advertisement in public space belongs to those
who cannot avoid seeing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top